Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well in all fairness to Obamacare, many current plans use 30 hours as the criteria for full-time. My plan with Kaiser had the 30 hour criteria for at least ten years. At one time it was 25.
Haven't we been deregulating things for three decades now? I've done the research and I'm pretty sure that that there were far more regulations in the 1970s than there are now.
Here is the problem. You can't "regulate" which creates special privileges and circumstances for the big businesses and then turn around and "deregulate" expecting everything to work well right off.
Let me give you an example of when I lived in CA. Do you remember the big fiasco with the energy crisis in CA several years ago? Well, here is what happened. There are 3 major companies that provide energy in CA, one of the major ones was PG&E. At the time, there was a major boom of start-ups in the market that were going to provide a lot of competition for energy, similar to what we have in Texas, we have around a 100 or so different companies competing and prices are dirt cheap because of it, lots of options and this forces companies to attend to the consumer rather than dictate to the consumer. Now the big 3 didn't like this, especially PG&E. So, the PG&E started a major lobby campaign for regulation and they made deals with the state eventually getting that regulation legislation through.
It wasn't hard, people have the misconception that regulation is their savior, it protects them, etc... and the big 3 milked this for all it was worth. Not only that, but PG&E lobbied heavily for "environmental regulations" and donated enormous amounts of money to environmental groups to protest and fight the start-up energy companies. With those regulations, it made any chance for a start-up to succeed pretty much impossible. They all folded and the projects were scrapped.
This went on for a while and then the big 3 started to complain about how they couldn't handle the loads and how the price of energy was skyrocketing for them (after the start-ups were gone), how their companies were in danger, that blackouts would be the norm, people would go without, blah blah. They began to work deals with the state and the state implemented a penalty tax system on over baseline usage (to help pay for the emergency cost of energy they claimed). It was ridiculous as your bill could quadruple going over the stages of penalty. The year before, I paid around 100 bucks for my bill and after this went through, I paid 600 the following summer with most of the bill in penalty taxes.
Now here is the thing. Energy costs for the big 3 weren't going up. In fact, they were selling their reserves to other states and then turning around and buying it from Canada at nearly quadruple the cost so they could show a loss and spur an "emergency" situation which could be used to remove the regulations. This was during the time of Grey Davis and it is one of the reasons we kicked him out, him as well as some other key members were doing dirty business with the companies.
So, regulation was removed... and prices shot up. Not only that, but the state refused to remove its "emergency" clause for penalties, claiming it was a good thing to have for future emergencies.
Now all that happens and what do you think people did? They complained about how "deregulation" is evil and how regulation is needed, how without it companies will take advantage of people, blah blah blah...
Fact is, it was government that allowed the companies to gain their power and fleece the people of the state. Regulation didn't help, it was the CAUSE of the problem. Without regulation, there would have been multiple companies competing and the result would have been much cheaper prices due to the competition (like it is here in Texas, I can get plans as low as .06 kwh).
So when you say deregulation is bad, yes... it can be bad, but only bad because regulation was the problem in the first place. What we have here these days is crony capitalism. We don't have a free market, we have big businesses using corrupt government to control and manipulate the market. More government involvement won't protect you, it will only solidify the grasp of the major businesses out there.
Well in all fairness to Obamacare, many current plans use 30 hours as the criteria for full-time. My plan with Kaiser had the 30 hour criteria for at least ten years. At one time it was 25.
I hate to defend the guy but those are the facts.
Despite this, his plan still sucks.
A company defines for themselves how many hours constitute full time status.
Walmart is 34 hours (happened to look that up).
It's not health plans that decide full time status, it's companies that decide it.
What exactly is so bad about changing full-time to thirty hours a week? Doesn't that give workers more free-time?
Oh my goodness!!!! Do you have any CLUE where money comes from??? I don't have a money tree growing in my backyard. My money comes from my JOB. I need the hours at my job to pay for important stuff like rent and food. I NEED 40 hours or more so I can have MONEY to buy things and pay for FOOD AND RENT.
Unless you are sucking the teet of the government, 30 hours a week isn't going to allow the majority of Americans to make ends meet.
It is truly amazing to me how clueless most liberals truly are.
A company defines for themselves how many hours constitute full time status.
Walmart is 34 hours (happened to look that up).
It's not health plans that decide full time status, it's companies that decide it.
Correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
Because the IRS defines a major employer by how many full time employees they have not the business anymore. It does matter. This will create many more "major employers" for tax purposes.
I guess the "so what" only matters if you are the owner of the business.
Good point.
Bureaucratically...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by BJW50
You can't make your employees 1099.
Yes, you can.
Watch what happens.
You're fired....if you want to return to your former job... you'll have to do it as an independent contractor...you've got 3 minutes to decide before I call a temp company to send a replacement for you. If you're lucky, I might even refer you to the temp agency.
1099 Time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BJW50
Because there are specifics for who qualifies. My SIL says that you can set a deadline for a job. But you have no control over how they do the job. A 1099 is self employed. She does taxes for a living.
(Sigh), self-employed includes independent contractors.
Why don't you talk to the P&G employees who got fired and are now working for P&G....as independent contractors.....and yes, they pay their FICA/SECA taxes and provide their own benefits.
Independently contracting...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
No one is talking about cutting anyone's hours! Apparently (and I say apparently b/c I haven't seen this confirmed anywhere) 30 hours is the set point at which health care benefits have to kick in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BJW50
My son and step-son's employer considers 32hrs fulltime. They have one person who works 24hrs. No one is in danger of losing any hours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceece
Have you been informed by your employer that ANY OF THIS is going to happen to you? Already? Really?
It's Economics; it's not a train; it doesn't run on a schedule.
I can tell you exactly what is happening right now....
Those companies who throw away $Millions per year on a compliance staff, and those companies that throw away slightly less than $Millions per year contracting with a consulting firm for compliance will be getting the bad news shortly. The small companies that cannot for throw away $Millions on lawyers, paralegal and legal secretaries to scrutinize the Federal Register, and all 50 State law digests (plus the federal court law digest) for all of the stupid government regulations, court rulings and other nonsense that increase their liability and/or operating costs will also get the bad news shortly.
For everyone else, it'll be a month or more before their attorney or accounting firm contacts them to give them the bad news.
Then everyone will spend 3 months to 6 months crunching numbers to get a 7-10 year financial forecast with the new numbers.
Then it will take a month or two for them to try to figure out how to get around it, then another month mulling over the options, and then another to hold staff meetings and come to a policy decision.
That's how it works.
So, no, no one's hours will be cut tomorrow, or next week or even next month and probably not even next year.......but starting January 1, 2014, it will be a different story.
And what question have I been asking for the last 3 years?
Exactly how much will an employee cost under Obamacare on January 1, 2014?
Now, does everyone understand why I repeatedly keep asking the question? And why I never get an answer? And why no one can answer?
Because the Bureaucrats are not finished writing the regulations affecting Obamacare.
You still have 15 more months of this very same crap at least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
Don't know why that won't work, but of course, the Obama haters can always think of a reason. 30 hrs for HI, 35 or 36 or 40 or whatever for other bennies; I don't see what the issue is. People in my office who work more hours (than me) get more vacation days. So what?
You don't see what the issue is, because you've never run your own business, and because you think everyone should pay for everyone's health care expect themselves, because, you know, it's "free."
I don't guess it ever occurred to you that some employers define "full-time" as 38 hours, or 36 hours or 34 hours or 32 hours or 30 hours for reason....and that reason is paid benefits --- uh, like health care.
You have a restaurant that says 36 hours is full-time, so they can limit the amount of benefits they pay, so, you know, they can keep the doors open and not fire the employees and go out of business.
Because, uh, staying in business and keeping the doors open is the whole point, right?
Now you just forced them to include additional employees -- you just forced employers to provide and pay for health care benefits that the employer cannot afford to pay ----which was the whole purpose of limiting full-time to 36 hours a week in the first freaking place, and then to make matters worse, Obamacare mandates what percentage the employer must pay.
So why don't you dazzle us all with your business acumen and financial savvy and explain how employers who limit benefits to a certain number of hours so they can keep their doors open and stay in business are going to be able to keep their doors open and stay in business by spending money they don't have.
When you come to terms with reality and accept the fact that you cannot violate the Laws of Economics without suffering a penalty, your life will be that much better off.
Not amused...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haakon
And no voting until 26 either, if they're so incapable of caring for themselves they certainly can't be trusted with a vote.
I like it, I like it.
Touche!....
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by sware2cod
I am glad ObamaCare classifies 30 hrs as Full Time for qualification for Health Care.
Don't worry, they are only getting paid for 30 hrs, not 40. It's just to qualify for health care. That's all.
Oh yeah? You're glad only because you haven't gotten the bill for it yet.
After you get the bill, they'll probably have to sedate you.
Classifying...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneTraveler
In bolded, that just sounds like propaganda to me. Countries like Canada have far less expensive healthcare systems and far more government involvement.
And you forgot to mention they have far fewer people....about 280 Million fewer people.
And you forgot to mention that O Canadians! do something that Americans are not capable of doing....exercising restraint.
When Americans learn that just because something is free there is no concomitant obligation to avail yourself of the free-thing 24/7 then you'll be that much more closer to possibly having some sort of universal health care....about 1% closer.
I don't understand why tax forms would get any uglier than they are now. The witholding, SS all that stuff is very individual. At my office, we are paid by the hour, and virutally everyone works a different number of hours. You are creating a problem where none exists.
Not many software changes. You already have the data field/column defined where now they are PT or FT. You just add a new choice such as HC(health care) .
Where HC would be 30 hrs or more but less than FT
HT folks would qualify for health care but nothing else. However, for healthcare, they pay more out of pocket than FT folks.
Do you recall the limit for small business ?
Any small business with 50 or more full time workers had to provide healthcare else they were exempt.
Realize how many small businesses will now have full time workers with these changed hours whereas before this ruling they didn't have 50 full time employees.
So they can have more workers that work 25 hrs per week if they want to get around the rules. Or, they pay $2000 per year to the Feds if they refuse to provide employees with a choice for health care. Just because they give the option to employees, it doesnt mean the company has to pay for the health plan. They can offer a $450/mo plan and the employee pays the $450/mo. Then the company meets the criteria. It's really not a big deal.
To me, over 50 employees working at least 30 hrs per week isn't really that "small" of a business. They should be offering their employess health insurance in most cases already if they want to keep their good employhees. Else they are a revolving door because employees jump ship quickly due to inadequate benefits.
Actually, it is the claim those systems are successful and cost effective that is the propaganda. This is anecdotal, but I have friends in Canada and they despise the system. One of my friends was in the military, he said he didn't realize how bad it was until he finished his service. While in, he could go to the front of the line and never had to wait to be attended, but after, he said it was absurd how long it took to get seen by a doctor. Another friend of mines son was diagnosed with cancer, he had to wait 6 months for the operation, they went to the US instead.
Notice something? 8 kids. Also, she was a maid, she didn't aspire to anything more. Sure, you can say... well she had 8 kids and couldn't afford to, but we all make choices and we must all live with the choices we make. She was where she was because she made choices that placed her there.
This is why your argument is invalid. It is a position of "give me, I want! Everyone can go to hell because I want!" Your argument cares little of liberty, of freedom, it is a self serving argument that demands special treatment, because "you want it". You are a communist, disregarding individual liberty to chase after an ideal that has murdered hundreds of millions throughout history. You don't care though, because if we just give it one more chance, it will work. Your argument is that of a victim of propaganda.
Never did a budget? There is an old saying "Take care of your pennies and your dollars take care of themselves". People over spend on many things they don't need. There is nothing wrong with people buying what they choose, but there is a problem with people being irresponsible in their spending and then complaining they can't afford something. The fact is, people don't often have health care because they choose not to afford it and then when it becomes a necessity, it is too late.
Again, you have been pushing more and more for a communistic principal and there is no reasoning with you. You have contempt for individual liberty and see nothing wrong with dictating freedoms to others to serve your self interest. There is no hope for you other than to have you experience the consequences of your desires. It is unfortunate, for your foolishness will be the hardship and death of many.
I have contempt for individual liberty? It is you who believes that healthcare should be less accessible to the underprivileged in America.
And why do you equate the government helping more Americans acquire health insurance as taking away their liberty? What nonsense. Almost as much nonsense as your statement that my thoughts are going to cause the death of many. Oh my god if that isn't a brainwashed mind I don't know what is.
And you can't say I have "gimme! I want" attitude. I now have full time work and health insurance. My paycheck yesterday showed all of my taxes and deductions. I would gladly pay more so that young Americans trying to get through college Could have affordable access to healthcare because I didn't and it seriously sucked!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
